Does Science Presume Naturalism?

[MindForgedManacle]

Since I'm not very familiar with the philosophy of science, I'd figure I'd leave this question for those who are. Basically, do you think science has a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism?

[JohnCrichton72]

Since I'm not very familiar with the philosophy of science, I'd figure I'd leave this question for those who are. Basically, do you think science has a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism?

"the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

Yes, the supernatural and spiritual by definition (depends on how you define them I guess) are not quantifiable by scientific means. If they were they wouldn't be "super"natural but natural, observable, quantifiable, could be independently verified and abide by natural laws. Hence Natural. Supernatural things exist in a suspension of the natural laws. Even undiscovered ones.

A good example is dark matter, we can't do any of the above.......... not going to make scientists stop hypothesising and inquiring and assume "God did it".

[Napoléon]

A good example is dark matter, we can't do any of the above.......... not going to make scientists stop hypothesising and inquiring and assume "God did it".

Well seen as we can kind of gauge the effects of dark matter, or at least notice the significant lack of mass apparent in the universe, it's not really the same as hypothesising about gods.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, science proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism, precisely because the focus of its study is the natural world. This is as it should be. The problem is when some people, like Mr. Crichton, confuse this with ontological naturalism, i.e. "the philosophical belief...". Ontological naturalism is not a scientific position.

[JohnCrichton72]

A good example is dark matter, we can't do any of the above.......... not going to make scientists stop hypothesising and inquiring and assume "God did it".

Well seen as we can kind of gauge the effects of dark matter, or at least notice the significant lack of mass apparent in the universe, it's not really the same as hypothesising about gods.

I know, my point being lack of an explanation warrants one in the scientific view. Supernatural claims cannot be examined using any of the aforementioned and are resistant to explanation, hence supernatural. You can only assume supernatural cause as a result, unless you choose to be intellectually dishonest.

When you can weigh and measure (and feel wanting) supernatural claims it is no longer supernatural. It is debunked.

[bennyboy]

Since I'm not very familiar with the philosophy of science, I'd figure I'd leave this question for those who are. Basically, do you think science has a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, or at least methodological naturalism?

It depends what you define as "natural." I think any theory that can be interfaced through physical observations can be studied scientifically. So things like ESP, miracles, faith, etc. are perfectly viable candidates for scientific study, since you can establish purely physical expectations for observation.

[JohnCrichton72]

Yes, science proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism, precisely because the focus of its study is the natural world. This is as it should be. The problem is when some people, like Mr. Crichton, confuse this with ontological naturalism, i.e. "the philosophical belief...". Ontological naturalism is not a scientific position.

Quite right, apologies.

Curious mind;

Would you not first have to hypothesise to derive the methodology, which would imply a philosophical beginning to all scientific enquiry?

If so;

Methodological naturalism is just applying a working theory to ontological naturalism, as to discern it's validity. I don't see how, if this is the case, ontological naturalism is any less scientific.

[bennyboy]

As an aside, I'd also say that any religious inquiry not based on naturalism is horseshit, since it shows disrespect to the physical clues with a God would (in theory) have left for us to unravel. I like the idea of God as the "Mystery X quantity" and science as the pursuit of discovering what that quantity is. I'm not sure whether I'd say the final discoveries about the universe would finally remove the mystery, and make the word "God" irrelevant-- or complete all knowledge, and finally provide a definition of God that actually accords with reality. Semantics, I guess.

[Angrboda]

Yes, science proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism, precisely because the focus of its study is the natural world. This is as it should be. The problem is when some people, like Mr. Crichton, confuse this with ontological naturalism, i.e. "the philosophical belief...". Ontological naturalism is not a scientific position.

Quite right, apologies.

Curious mind;

Would you not first have to hypothesise to derive the methodology, which would imply a philosophical beginning to all scientific enquiry?

If so;

Methodological naturalism is just applying a working theory to ontological naturalism, as to discern it's validity. I don't see how, if this is the case, ontological naturalism is any less scientific.

There's an interesting lecture that William James gave on a related subject. FallenToReason quoted it a while back, but I don't recall the title.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17937-po...#pid420042

The work in question is "The Will To Believe" by William James, being a lecture he gave in 1896. The paragraph cited is in section two of this copy. The point of the lecture may be helpful as well, so that one knows the terrain in advance.

"The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published in 1896, which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth.

James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for the truth of one's religious belief.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, science proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism, precisely because the focus of its study is the natural world. This is as it should be. The problem is when some people, like Mr. Crichton, confuse this with ontological naturalism, i.e. "the philosophical belief...". Ontological naturalism is not a scientific position.

Quite right, apologies.

Curious mind;

Would you not first have to hypothesise to derive the methodology, which would imply a philosophical beginning to all scientific enquiry?

If so;

Methodological naturalism is just applying a working theory to ontological naturalism, as to discern it's validity. I don't see how, if this is the case, ontological naturalism is any less scientific.

Not exactly methodological naturalism confines inquiry to empically verifiable phenomena. It leaves aside metaphysical questions like ontology.